The electoral college and how it changes voting

[frigidweirdo]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

 

[KGB]

More whining from the Left. A system that's worked as intended for over 220 years. I don't New York, California & Texas deciding each election.

 

[Unkotare]

...

We know the electoral college messes things up...

No, 'we' don't.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Funny, it worked just fine when every Democrat was elected. Odd, very odd.

 

[Pogo]

More whining from the Left. A system that's worked as intended for over 220 years. I don't New York, California & Texas deciding each election.

"Worked well for over 220 years"?

Worked so well it kept slavery around, kept women down, nullifies the votes of tens of millions who don't happen to vote the way their state does, creates artificial barriers of "red" and "blue" states, discourages voting in those states at all, perpetuates the Duopoly, biases voting to the eastern time zones, and makes us dependent on polls to determine whether we may as well not even bother to vote because it's already decided regardless what we do.

That sure is "working well" ain't it.

 

[Unkotare]

....

The system is clearly unfair.....

Aw, is you still upset, widdle one? Maybe you will feel better if you go block a few ambulances and commit a little vandalism.

 

[Pogo]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

I can't say I follow the "worth 3.8 votes" thing, but somebody pointed out that California has 30% of the population with its 55 Electrical Votes. Simple math tells us that 30% of 538 is 161.4, which is the number California should have to represent 30% of all voters.

Of course that requires four-tenths of a vote, but that's not an issue. Four-tenths is two-fifths, which is the other half of the three-fifths of a person the original EC was using to count black people, so there's a precedent.

 

[yiostheoy]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

According to Huffington, it was 61.78 to 60.83 millions.

2016 Presidential Election Live Results

 

[OKTexas]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

All meaningless tripe, votes are only counted in the States where they're cast. Every vote is equal to every other vote cast in that State.

 

[yiostheoy]

Funny, it worked just fine when every Democrat was elected. Odd, very odd.

I recall that Gore got more than W. Bush as well.

 

[KGB]

More whining from the Left. A system that's worked as intended for over 220 years. I don't New York, California & Texas deciding each election.

"Worked well for over 220 years"?

Worked so well it kept slavery around, kept women down, nullifies the votes of tens of millions who don't happen to vote the way their state does, creates artificial barriers of "red" and "blue" states, discourages voting in those states at all, perpetuates the Duopoly, biases voting to the eastern time zones, and makes us dependent on polls to determine whether we may as well not even bother to vote because it's already decided regardless what we do.

That sure is "working well" ain't it.

It sure is. Keeps 3 states (or more precisely 2 cities on opposite coasts) from nullifying the wishes & votes of the other 47. Makes places like New Hampshire & North Dakota relevant. Lessens the likelihood of voter fraud by conducting 51 separate elections across the country.

The Popular Vote vs. the Electoral College

 

[KGB]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

All meaningless tripe, votes are only counted in the States where they're cast. Every vote is equal to every other vote cast in that State.

As it should be...

 

[yiostheoy]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

Were you paying attention in school when the teachers explained the large state / small state issue and debate ?! The bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House Of Reps deals with that issue at the legislative level.

At the Presidential level, the electoral college deals with this issue perfectly as well.

 

[Unkotare]

Funny, it worked just fine when every Democrat was elected. Odd, very odd.

I recall that Gore got more than W. Bush as well.

I recall that Bush won that election.

 

[frigidweirdo]

More whining from the Left. A system that's worked as intended for over 220 years. I don't New York, California & Texas deciding each election.

Whining? I stated the facts.

North Korea's system also "works as intended".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Funny, it worked just fine when every Democrat was elected. Odd, very odd.

No, I don't think so. However the EC is weighted against the Democrats. In the last 100 years a Democrat has never won with less votes than their opponent.

 

[tyroneweaver]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

You accepted the contract when you step into that voting booth and voted knowing full well that the EC was in play.
And now you want out of the contract
Hilarious.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

I can't say I follow the "worth 3.8 votes" thing, but somebody pointed out that California has 30% of the population with its 55 Electrical Votes. Simple math tells us that 30% of 538 is 161.4, which is the number California should have to represent 30% of all voters.

Of course that requires four-tenths of a vote, but that's not an issue. Four-tenths is two-fifths, which is the other half of the three-fifths of a person the original EC was using to count black people, so there's a precedent.

The population of Texas to the electoral college votes it has, means a person is worth 3.8 times less than a person in Wyoming. California hardly has 30% of the population. They have a population of 39 million, 30% of 300 million is clearly not 39 million. 90 million is 30%. So someone was telling you porkies.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

Were you paying attention in school when the teachers explained the large state / small state issue and debate ?! The bicameral Congress with a Senate and a House Of Reps deals with that issue at the legislative level.

At the Presidential level, the electoral college deals with this issue perfectly as well.

I understand the system. I just don't like how a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote anywhere else.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So, Hillary got 61.7 million votes and Trump got 60.7 million votes and Trump won.

We know the electoral college messes things up, but by how much?

A person in Wyoming has a vote worth 3.8 times that of a person in Texas, Florida and New York have even worse odds than that, Vermont has a vote 3 times Texas, Alaska and North Dakota 2.9. Seems pretty unfair for Florida, New York, Texas, California etc. Florida's only bright spot is that they can change an election, New York, Texas and California are forgotten places not worth much.

However if we take the states that Trump won, and we count the votes that went to both Republican and Democrat, Trump got 71.7 million votes and if we count the Rep and Dem votes of the states Hillary won we have 48.8 million votes.

If we take the equivalent votes (i.e., number of votes * worth of vote against Texas (Texas =1, Wyoming = 3.8) then Trump got 71.1 million votes and Hillary 69.8 million votes).

If we then take the states and their equivalents the Trump got 84.5 million and Hillary got 56.4 million votes.

So, depending on how you look at it, Hillary lost somewhere between 2.3 million votes and 28 million votes.

The system is clearly unfair.

The most unfair thing about it is that the main two parties get total domination of the political scene.

We know from German elections where people vote twice, once for constituency member in a FPTP system and once in PR for who they want to see as the majority party that people are more likely to vote the main parties for FPTP than for PR.

The CDU (right wing party) gained 16.2 million votes in FPTP and 14.9 million in PR
The SPD (Left wing party) gained 12.8 million in FPTP and 11.2 million in PR
The FDP (center party, considered a 3rd party) gained 1 million votes in FPTP and 2 million in PR.

Clearly, again, it isn't fair to have FPTP as people's wishes just aren't met.

You accepted the contract when you step into that voting booth and voted knowing full well that the EC was in play.
And now you want out of the contract
Hilarious.

Did I vote? Did I accept the system?

Ever heard of the word "change"? It's like saying you elected a govt, therefore you shouldn't expect any change from that govt. Er... what kind of logic is that?

I'm saying IN FUTURE ELECTIONS I want a fairer system.